It'll be temporary. They have to face the corporate behemoth that is really in charge.

It's going to take much, much more than a change of face in a minor political party to protect us from climate change, pollution and resource depletion._________________The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.

The Labour Party and the LibDems for that matter, are facing a very bleak existence for decades to come.

The Tories have successfully convinced a gullible public (via repeated MSM articles and programs) that the unemployed, the sick and the disadvantaged are responsible for a financial crisis which we all know, was actually engineered by the banks and corporations.

It is precisely because the public at large have unfortunately bought into Osborne's mantra, that any left of centre or socialist opposition finds itself out in the cold.

It pains me to say it, but the likes of Harriet Harman are increasingly representative of a new breed of aspirational Labour Party supporters who have become disillusioned with traditional party values.

This trend will only be reversed when the sheeple wake up to the fact that corporations now control every aspect of their lives and have successfully reversed the hard won, working class gains that have been made during the past 100 years or so. Don't hold your breath.

As western economies go into further decline, for all of the reasons which we have continually aired on this forum, the truth may begin to dawn on the public that they have been drawn into a 'game show' from which there is no escape. By that time, any viable opposition party will have torn itself apart and completely lost sight of any core values.

As long as 30 years ago it was obvious to me that the difference between science and economics was that scientists try to fit their mathematical models to the physical world, whilst economists try to fit the physical world to their mathematical models.

There is a vast amount the individual can do - and live a fulfilling, exciting, contented active life - but it doesn't fit in with what people have been conditioned to expect; laziness plays a major part too._________________The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.

There is a vast amount the individual can do - and live a fulfilling, exciting, contented active life - but it doesn't fit in with what people have been conditioned to expect; laziness plays a major part too.

Agreed. I'm in my early sixties, retired, financially independent, active and in good health.

However, my overriding concern is for the next and subsequent generations. They've been handed a poisoned chalice, of our making, from which there will be little chance of escape. Their aspirations for career, housing, independence and quality healthcare are unlikely to be met.

On a more selfish note, it also troubles me that their dissatisfaction will start to overflow and impact on my life. I'm a baby boomer - I'll be to blame!

As long as 30 years ago it was obvious to me that the difference between science and economics was that scientists try to fit their mathematical models to the physical world, whilst economists try to fit the physical world to their mathematical models.

Varoufakis (to stray into another discussion) points out that he was a statistician, not an economist. He was very critical of much that happened in university economics departments and set about, with others, to make changes. Changes have happened, which is why academic economics is not what it used to be._________________http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/